Talk:Unnamed Kzinti
Merging Obviously, "fourth" and "fifth" need a bit of fleshing out, with an image for "fifth" being an added bonus. Having said that, it seems to me that "Flyer" and "Telepath" should be merged into this page too, as to me, those are descriptors, not names. And yes, I know the script refers to them as "Flyer" and "Telepath"... but I do believe that these are still descriptors (unlike "Chuft-Captain"). -- sulfur (talk) 12:39, September 5, 2016 (UTC) :Agreed. --Defiant (talk) 13:15, September 5, 2016 (UTC) ::Telepath was certainly called that in the dialogue by the others, like a name. My understanding is that Kzinti who haven't earned names are called by their function as if it is their name (of course that only goes in background notes). And what is the rationale for why we are not using Fourth Kzin and Fifth Kzin here?--Side Rat (talk) 14:25, September 5, 2016 (UTC) :Er... perhaps because that would be entirely non-canon, as you've already been told, time and again, at Talk:Kzinti#Proper singular form? --Defiant (talk) 08:09, September 6, 2016 (UTC) ::Once again, Memory Alpha's resource policy has a specific clause that explicitly allows for the inclusion of character names from production materials where they are not given onscreen in in-universe sections of articles. It is "entirely non-canon" that Picard's fish is named Livingston, or that Tyree's planet is called Neural, but it is MA policy to use those names in articles. These characters who were not referred to by name in dialogue are not called "Fourth" and "Fifth" in the production materials. They are called Fourth Kzin and Fifth Kzin. Those are the names we should use for them per policy.--Side Rat (talk) 08:39, September 6, 2016 (UTC) :Firstly, "Kzin" is a totally non-canon term. Secondly, I doubt that policy you've cited actually applies here because "Fourth" and "Fifth" are not names, but titles. --Defiant (talk) 08:47, September 6, 2016 (UTC) ::What ridiculous parsing of language. "Name", "title", "descriptor"...it's what the characters are identified as in the production materials. It's what they should be called in articles. Of course any term that's not spoken onscreen is technically non-canon. We are expressly permitted to use such non-canon information in cases like these, to this extent. It's quite clearly stated in the policy, and in accordance with the practices followed everywhere else on this wiki.--Side Rat (talk) 09:16, September 6, 2016 (UTC) ::Fine, I retract that bit, maybe it was uncalled for.--Side Rat (talk) 09:26, September 6, 2016 (UTC) :"Maybe"?! Of course it was uncalled for! Continuing in a serious vein, the resource policy states, "The primary reason for this non-canon names is to avoid creating a large number of 'unnamed' subject pages when an official name already exists." Whether we use "Fourth Kzin/Kzinti" or just call him "Fourth", his entry will still be on this page, as he's still unnamed. In other words, there's no point in using a non-canonical title in the in-universe info to refer to him. The exactness about whether "Fourth Kzin" is a name, a title, or descriptor is not because people are nitpicking; it's because this character is on an "unnamed" page and, if "Fourth Kzin" were an actual name, the entry would have its own page instead. The resource policy also points out, "In the event that any of this information contradicts on-screen information, however, then the information stated on-screen will take precedence." As stated multiple times at Talk:Kzinti#Proper singular form?, the singular form of this character's species is canonically established as "Kzinti", so if anything, this entry should be "Fourth Kzinti". But again, what's the point, since the name of this page itself shows that the character is obviously a Kzinti?! --Defiant (talk) 09:44, September 6, 2016 (UTC) ::The fact that it has been stated by you multiple times in that discussion does not make it accurate.--Side Rat (talk) 10:02, September 6, 2016 (UTC) ::And your rationale above about unnamed pages applies just as much to Livingston and Neural, which could just as easily be on pages for "Unnamed fish" and "Unnamed planets".--Side Rat (talk) 10:06, September 6, 2016 (UTC) ::Also, I would be of the opinion that these characters should have their own pages. I had actually intended to create pages for each of them once I get full scans of the script from GSchnitzer, with whom I have been discussing it for a week now. But Sulfur went this route instead in the meantime.--Side Rat (talk) 10:15, September 6, 2016 (UTC) "Fourth Kzin" is not a character name. It's a descriptor. It doesn't matter if that's how it's referenced in the script. We treat all races/species/etc with non-named people the same way. Those people not named or given descriptors go onto "unnamed" pages. In addition, we tend to try to NOT list their species repeatedly in the title on the page. So, if it were deemed that the flyer and telepath get added to this, then they'd be named simply "Flyer" and "Telepath" on the article. -- sulfur (talk) 10:19, September 6, 2016 (UTC) :Yeah, I absolutely agree. --Defiant (talk) 10:32, September 6, 2016 (UTC) ::Of course they should be; there was no reason why "Kzinti" ever should have been part of their article titles in the first place, at least not formatted in that particular way. That goes back to whoever it was that created them way back when, which I have sought to amend. And how do you know "Fourth Kzin" is not a Kzinti name? I happen to agree that it might be simply a descriptor, but why should we speculate instead of using it as given? What I was saying above about parsing is that I don't believe the policy is making any such distinction when it says production information can be used "to name items or people that were seen or referred to on-screen but not referred to by name". Items would be in most cases "named" by descriptors, so I don't see how it can be taken to imply that descriptors are excluded. One thing's for sure: these characters aren't simply called "Fourth" and "Fifth" in the script. And the script is what we're using to assign them their names/titles/descriptors as used in our articles. Where is the policy provision for making our own custom-picked adjustments/alterations/omissions with respect to that?--Side Rat (talk) 10:52, September 6, 2016 (UTC) :Judging by that comment, you seem to be getting mixed up between a descriptor and a name. A name is used to name things, whereas descriptors are used to describe things; seems pretty self-explanatory to me. Also, no "policy provision" is required, because we're not actually using the policy you keep citing, because, remember, it doesn't apply in this instance. --Defiant (talk) 11:19, September 6, 2016 (UTC) :*'Chuft-Captain': "Telepath, am I not affecting him at all?" :*'Fourth Kzin': "Telepath's suit is ruptured!" :*'Flyer': "Telepath's suit lost considerable pressure. We reached the ship in time to save him." ::This dialogue quoted directly from the aired episode seems to show that the descriptor "Telepath" is used to address him, as his name. It's of course quite possible that "Fourth Kzin" and "Fifth Kzin" would not be used in the same way, but to assume that would be as much speculation as to assume otherwise at this point. When the whole of both script drafts have been made accessible to me by GSchnitzer, I'll certainly be examining them to see if we can glean anything further.--Side Rat (talk) 12:02, September 6, 2016 (UTC) :::At the risk of re-opening this can of worms, I feel I should make my opinion heard before someone decides to merge the Telepath and Flyer pages. :::Telepath is clearly a name because he is referred to without a definite article in the quotes above. The fact that Telepath and Flyer are names and not merely descriptors is more obvious in the novelization where the words are capitalized even when they occur in the middle of a sentence: :::Concentrating hysterically, Telepath looked more than normally miserable. :::Deciding that the Vulcan was too far out of range, Flyer moved to aid Chuft-Captain. :::I am aware that using names from novels is against Memory Alpha's resource policy, but in this case the names come from the episode/script and we're only using the novel to confirm that they are actual names and not descriptors. :::"Fourth Kzin" and "Fifth Kzin", on the other hand, are definitely descriptors. --NetSpiker (talk) 07:07, October 19, 2016 (UTC) Why have BG notes explaining usage of term "Kzin" in script been removed? I see that Sulfur has removed my background notes explaining the naming of the characters Fourth Kzin and Fifth Kzin in the script. What policy is this in accordance with? It is an indisputable fact that the script uses "Kzin" as the term that refers to a singular individual of the Kzinti race, and that this is why these characters were referred to therein by that term. The resource policy specifically allows for character names from valid production resources that were not given onscreen to be used in articles here, so those names in full should not even be excluded from the in-universe info, but what on Earth can possibly be the justification for removing this relevant fact from the background notes as well? Why is this information to be concealed from the reader?--Side Rat (talk) 07:13, September 6, 2016 (UTC) :I agree with the removal of those snippets of bginfo, as they're irrelevant to each of the two characters themself, and much more relevant to the article about the species. --Defiant (talk) 08:14, September 6, 2016 (UTC) This information is directly relevant to the names of these specific characters as given in the script. It serves to explain to the reader why they are called that. Having this in two articles is hardly excessive, especially since leaving it out could potentially lead to confusion about the terminology on the part of both readers and contributors.--Side Rat (talk) 08:44, September 6, 2016 (UTC) :"Confusion"? What kind of confusion do you imagine might result? --Defiant (talk) 09:47, September 6, 2016 (UTC) ::Part of the reason for removal was the particular language used. The other part is, as noted above, it's just not necessary to say more than "the name is from the script." -- sulfur (talk) 09:52, September 6, 2016 (UTC) The language used was entirely factually accurate and encyclopedic. "Kzin" is the singular term as used in the script, which is the reason these characters are called that therein. Not explaining that fact results in a reader wondering: why was it "Fourth/Fifth Kzin" instead of "Kzinti"?--Side Rat (talk) 09:58, September 6, 2016 (UTC) :...and then they'd look at the species page if they were really so curious, where they'd find the answer. Nice try, Side Rat, but the script info you've proposed be readded should definitely still stay off this page, not only due to the two reasons stated, but also because that outcome is clearly community consensus. --Defiant (talk) 10:36, September 6, 2016 (UTC) What consensus? While I would like to assume good faith, it looks an awful lot to me like you and Sulfur seem to be doing everything you can to suppress the clear fact that, whatever was or wasn't used onscreen, the intent of Larry Niven and the other TAS production staff was for Kzin to be the singular form of Kzinti. Suppressing it from the in-universe sections is one thing, suppressing it from even the background information of this article despite it having a direct bearing on the naming of these characters in the script is another.--Side Rat (talk) 11:06, September 6, 2016 (UTC) :It's not suppressed in the bginfo; hence, the article states, for example, "This character was referred to as 'Fourth Kzin' in the script." Precisely what was on screen is key to this debate, as firstly, "Kzinti" is the only singular form of the species name used in canon, and secondly, canon references trump script info. I know you probably wish that weren't so... but it is. --Defiant (talk) 11:14, September 6, 2016 (UTC) That's leaving out the relevant context of what "Kzin" means, which should be made clear in the BG notes of any individual called this, since it isn't part of our standard usage here. (If it were, as I've suggested it rightfully ought to be in that other discussion, then maybe it wouldn't be necessary to clarify it in each case!) And please stop repeating the fallacy that "Kzinti" got used singularly in canon. It never happened. It was only used to refer to multiple individuals and as an adjective attached to another noun. Check your facts.--Side Rat (talk) 15:25, September 6, 2016 (UTC) ::A) NOT relevant to explain all here. ::B) The language you used, while grammatically correct, was actually quite underhanded in the way it was written, suggesting that the language used elsewhere was incorrect (re: Kzinti v Kzin). ::It's not getting re-added here, and this argument, despite being RESOLVED a week ago elsewhere, seems to be wandering around in random circles in a variety of places on the wiki. ::So, just stop. -- sulfur (talk) 15:32, September 6, 2016 (UTC) It is absolutely not resolved. Your "resolution" came before this additional information from "The Slaver Weapon" script was even made available, and apparently without you even having access to the actual episode to check the dialogue for yourself. Ever since additional evidence came to light, it's basically been crickets there from anyone who disagreed with me, with the sole exception of Defiant. Even you haven't responded in any way but to "underhandedly" (using your term) edit the page differently from how your own suggested "resolution" outlined. I am not "wandering in random circles in a variety of places"; I am making reasoned arguments based on canon, production intent, and MA policy in the places where they are directly relevant to the content of this wiki. The language I had used here was exactly this: This character was referred to as "Fourth Kzin" in the script, "Kzin" being the term used therein for a singular Kzinti individual. What is "underhanded" about that? According to the script, Kzin is the term for a single Kzinti individual, and that's what it uses. (And if you feel this suggests that the language used elsewhere is incorrect, that's only because according to the script, it is. If straightforwardly explaining the usage as found therein makes us look wrong, that's not my fault...it's because we are. The scripts are the source of that idea, not I.)--Side Rat (talk) 00:44, September 7, 2016 (UTC) Voice of Fifth Kzin As for who did the voice of Fifth Kzin, I do not know. It could very well be James Doohan, who did the other Kzinti voices, but my ears aren't keen enough to tell specifically about Fifth Kzin's. It sounds quite different from the others, but the man did have a great talent for putting on different voices.--Side Rat (talk) 07:14, September 6, 2016 (UTC)